The affability so characteristic of Mr. Noel-Baker was not noticeable last Saturday when I handed him the Minister's personal letter,¹ together with the typed copy of his article for next Sunday's issue of the Observer.

He read the Minister's letter but deferred reading the article until he had more time. He explained that he was very tired through getting to bed in the small hours and having to be up again the next morning very early - so much so that he had sometimes to look at the calendar to make sure which day of the week it was.

More in sorrow than in anger he told me that we had caused the British Government generally, and himself in particular, a great deal of work and worry. He enlarged upon the distractions of Europe, the state of the world generally, and the vital need for democratic countries everywhere to unite firmly in order to present a solid widely-extending front to the menacing forces of Communism. Yet at so critical a stage in the world affairs of today, one country in a strategical location of key importance was deliberately making a defection from the Commonwealth which was so conspicuous a bulwark against the disrupting forces of Russia and her satellites.

I suggested that having regard to the history of the relations between our two countries, the word 'defection' could not be applied to our action in repealing the External Relations Act.

To this Mr. Noel-Baker made no reply but went on to say that in the first stage of their discussions with the Dominions about our repeal proposal, the latter had expressed their view that Ireland could not abolish the External Relations Act and thereafter continue to enjoy the rights and preferences of a Commonwealth country. 'When we met in Paris', he said, 'and your representatives said that the Irish Government was unshaken in its purpose of defection from the Commonwealth, we, and the Dominions, sat down to see how far we could accept such an act with the least possible harm to both countries. The three Dominion Governments then urged that some way must be found to avoid your people being treated as foreigners'. I pointed out that both at Chequers and in subsequent public statements, our Government had made it crystal clear that their decision to repeal the Act was unalterable.

He had sent to the Ministers a summary of their understanding of the position at the end of the Paris discussions and thought that Mr. MacBride had regarded it as, generally speaking, satisfactory. They had despatched copies of this summary to the Governments represented at the Paris meeting 'and we shall have to wait' he said somewhat plaintively, 'to see what they say'.

The short conversation ended by his saying that serious as was the trouble they had experienced about our problem, it was far less than the troubles they were having with India - it might almost be said that the troubles of these two countries for the British were nearly in proportion to their respective populations!